Post by Trog on Mar 25, 2017 15:32:32 GMT

“Darkness is good,” Bannon told The Hollywood Reporter the week after the election. “Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power.” This was not an endorsement of Satanism. It was a wink from the ringmaster.

Lenin’s dictum “that, of all the arts, for us the cinema is the most important” is recalled in Bannon’s relatively sane In the Face of Evil; the stated raison d’être for the Citizens United organization was to create a strand of right-wing documentary that would mirror the success of Fahrenheit 9/11. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. By spending so much time on Bannon’s aesthetics, I may have given more thought to them than he has. Yet he might well know exactly what he’s doing, and likely cares not that he tramples over norms of journalism or truth or beauty or democracy to make the films that he has. He’s recognized that his audience likely cares not for these norms and now that he’s assumed power, what happens if he is able to reproduce his worldview on the grand scale? It’s worrisome that, by all that we’ve seen, Stephen Bannon seems the type who would laughingly burn everything around him for pleasure and care little that his conflagration has left nothing behind.

Post by Trog on Apr 6, 2017 14:33:16 GMT

Yes. My take on it is that it's a storm in a teacup. The WH explanation is that Bannon was appointed to the Security Council to (a) keep an eye on General Mike Flynn, who apparently had problems connecting with his portfolio, (b) to maybe establish the sources of some of the leaks, and (c) to undo some structural damage done to the Council by the Obama administration. All of these are now complete. Bannon is still free to attend any of the Council's meetings, should he wish to do so.

The leftist MSM wants to make a big thing out of this, because of their default condition of hysteria. As with freedom fighters in South Africa, they need to claim non-existent victories because there are no other. The media on the right look as if they are trying to harvest the spinoff of this hysteria in order to get rid of Jared Kushner. This will be good, since Kushner is a true full-blood swamp person and maybe partly responsible for Trump's seemingly wavering resolve on the only things that got him elected, and will keep him elected come 2020.

It is important for Trump to rid himself of both Kushner and his daughter Ivanka's influence in the Whitehouse, otherwise he's going to die before he even started.

Post by cjm on Apr 6, 2017 16:17:17 GMT

It is important for Trump to rid himself of both Kushner and his daughter Ivanka's influence in the Whitehouse, otherwise he's going to die before he even started.

I frown on the set-up because it reminds me so much of the nepotism in SA. How are their views differ from that of Bannon?

I thought that

(a) Jared is quite an asset being Jewish.

(b) "recalling" Bannon from the NSC might be a good publicity stunt as it is unlikely that his views would go unheeded even if he is not formally on the Council. It would at least take some heat off the Administration.

This story of Bannon keeping an eye on Flynn does not ring true. Well, if it is true, there is much more to the Flynn saga than meets the eye.

The fact that I am considered an adult is both terrifying and hillarious

Post by Trog on Apr 7, 2017 11:31:51 GMT

“Since inauguration, it was really about four camps,” Ryun replied. “It was the Kushner camp, it was the Bannon camp, it was the Reince camp, and it was the Pence camp. But I’m starting to think, based off what I was hearing from yesterday and then reading reports this morning, that this is becoming actually more of two camps – that it really is the national populists, really led by Bannon, versus, quite frankly – there’s no other way to describe them – the liberal New York City set that have come in.”

Ryun said the latter camp included “Gary Cohn, Dina Powell,” and others he described as Democrats, along with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

“God bless them, they’re part of the Trump family, but let’s not kid ourselves: they are part of the Manhattan liberal set,” he said of the latter duo.

“The question that I have as I’m reading these reports – and I think we should start asking questions – who are they really? What has been their experience? What is their worldview? Because I’m starting to suspect their worldview does not line up with the campaign promises that Trump was making,” Ryun said.

“The people that voted for Donald Trump voted for very specific things,” he noted. “They do want to see a wall. They want to see immigration dealt with. They want to see healthcare reform. They want to see tax reform. They want to see all of these things.”

“Watching what’s taking place, I’m growing more and more concerned that some of the dynamics, some of the voices in Trump’s ear, some of the influences – we should start asking questions. Are they starting to steer him in the wrong direction, away from what got him into one of the most stunning victories in presidential history, got him into the White House?” Ryun asked.

“I’ve got to tell you, my hope is that Trump will say, ‘I know what got me in. I know what brought me to the White House. Steve Bannon is really the lead cheerleader on that front. Keep Steve close. Listen to Steve. Keep pushing down this path,” Ryun advised.

“If he does, there will be victory this year in regards to policy,” he anticipated. “He’s already going to have it this week with Gorsuch. I really do think we’re going to get something done with health care. There’s going to be a massive step in the right direction. I do think we’ve got a real shot at tax reform.”

“You get a couple of these victories under your belt. You keep going down this path. Then we’re going to start talking about what the second Trump term looks like,” he said. “But if he starts to stray, I’m concerned.”

Kassam asked where the Republican National Committee, its former chairman Reince Priebus, and Sean Spicer fit into this picture.

“You know, I think they’re starting to realize that the New York set, they’re not their friends,” Ryun replied. “I think in a weird strange alliance that the RNC folks are realizing they’re basically going to become allies with Bannon.”

“This is all on the fly. This is all really the last 24 hours,” he added. “If the other guys win, I guarantee you Bannon’s out, Reince is out, Spicer’s out, the corporate New York set is in.”

“I think you’re going to see, internally, really kind of what I think are strange alliances. But in the short term, I think they’re going to be working together to push back on this New York set. Quite frankly, even though it pains me somewhat to say this, I hope that Bannon and the RNC guys, that alliance is successful,” Ryun said.

My opinion is: if Bannon goes, Trump is toast. He will become the most mediocre, if not ludicrous, one-term POTUS in history.

Five people, including a senior administration official and several sources close to the president, tell POLITICO that Steve Bannon, one of Trump’s closest advisers, has clashed with the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who’s taken on an increasingly prominent portfolio in the West Wing. Bannon has complained that Kushner and his allies are trying to undermine his populist approach, the sources said.

The “big fight is between nationalists and the West Wing Democrats,” said a person familiar with Bannon’s thinking.

“You have these New York interlocutors who are just not political and who want to think that they’re above the way Washington thinks, but if anybody is allied on delivering on things that Trump ran on, it’s Bannon and Reince and the vice president,” said the Republican who has spoken to Bannon recently.

I'm not all that convinced that VP Pence is in the Bannon camp, though.Anyway, it is clear that Kushner must go. Along with Ivanka, in fact.

Post by Trog on Apr 7, 2017 19:06:26 GMT

A central tenet of Trump's presidency is "Make America great, again" or "America first!". In terms of foreign policy I would imagine that this means an attitude of non-interference and disengagement, unless it is to America's advantage. This is part of the systemising of Trump's election promises he would've gotten from Bannon.

I'm pretty sure that Bannon has no problem with Assad whatsoever. Whatever he may think of Assad, the truth is that Assad poses no threat to the US. In fact, for Bannon, Assad is in the position of 'the enemy of our enemy', which is Muslim fundamentalism. Assad may be a 'criminal against humanity', but that is very firmly not America's problem. Bannon would reckon: "Just leave Assad alone." I'd guess that that would've been his attitude towards Saddam Hussein as well. If he had any say at the time, there would've been no war with Iraq.

On the other hand, Bannon wants to bring Russia, the US, and in fact the entire Western civilisation, closer together. Bombing Syria would no doubt, and did, piss off the Russians big time.

So the bombing of Iraq comes entirely from the anti-Bannon. I can see Ivanka, holding Jarred hand, saying: "Dad. Look at the babies, they're dying! Dad. You are the president. You must do something!" And Donald saying: "Don't worry, sweetheart! I'll bomb the xxxxing crap out of them!"

The bombing of Syria is really indicative of Bannon (however temporary) losing ground. That may change.

Post by cjm on Apr 7, 2017 20:55:12 GMT

A very good response (if I may say so!). I however think that the attack is a shot across N Korea's bow (and Iran's, for that matter). Not able to justify it either as eloquently or logically!

Amended to add: While Ivanka might have been a trigger, the implications are such that I doubt whether either she or Jared saw the possibilities in the situation:

(a) Dispelling the notion that Trump is subservient to the Russians.(b) Patching the alliance with Nato (many of them were informed prior to the attack and supported the attack).(c) Getting Israel's ear(d) Serving as a warning to crackpot, tinhat dictators - we (South Africans) might pick the fruit of that (someday).(e) I mentioned N Korea and Iran(f) In the longer term it might assist getting stability in Syria and stemming the flood of emigrants(g) Showing that Trump is flexible enough to listen to other points of view (he effectively reversed his policy on Syria).(e) It portrays a caring president.

The downside is that I am doubtful about the international law legality of the bombing. I am pretty sure that Trump considered the implications as his justification was immediately at hand (attack on US interests - a sort of self- defense excuse).

Whether this is Bannon or not, this US intervention will ring loud for a long time

Post by Trog on Apr 12, 2017 7:29:13 GMT

The deployment of the US navy and Trump's tweets about North Korea is, I think, probably again more Bannonesque. It DOES have leverage from the Syria attack and is perhaps making the best of a bad thing. The overall strategy is to increase tension with China and up the brinkmanship with North Korea. The idea is broadly that the enemy is China, its cohorts, and Islamic extremism, and nothing else.

The Health Care Bill is being re-looked at and being negotiated with substantial input from the House Freedom Caucus! This is all good - the original was a disaster, and this way Trump is on track to deliver on an election promise.

Trump declared that the US has no intention of invading Syria. I think everybody knew that anyway, but it is perhaps significant that he felt the need to say that.

Maybe the above all has to do with appeasing Bannon. And the brains trust behind him. I remain confident that Trump realises that without them he really becomes a leaderless leader.

W.r.t. Syria, Trump should've ensured a thorough and impartial investigation of the circumstances, rather than to bomb the place. The outcome should've been used to embarrass the Russians, who own the Syria chemical weapons problem. It would also have allowed the Russians a graceful way out, which could've been leveraged in other useful ways. And the US could then also demand of the Russians to do something about the gas attack, rather than involving themselves. The one lesson everybody should've learned the past 2000 years about the Middle East is to stay the hell out of it - just isolate them and allow them to self-destruct.

Trump must reevaluate the situation with Kushner. The man apparently has unlimited authority and no clear portfolio. It's like "You just keep on doing things. I'll tell you when it's wrong". That is untenable.

Post by cjm on Apr 12, 2017 10:50:23 GMT

The Health Care Bill is being re-looked at and being negotiated with substantial input from the House Freedom Caucus! This is all good - the original was a disaster, and this way Trump is on track to deliver on an election promise.

...

W.r.t. Syria, Trump should've ensured a thorough and impartial investigation of the circumstances, rather than to bomb the place. The outcome should've been used to embarrass the Russians, who own the Syria chemical weapons problem. It would also have allowed the Russians a graceful way out, which could've been leveraged in other useful ways. And the US could then also demand of the Russians to do something about the gas attack, rather than involving themselves. The one lesson everybody should've learned the past 2000 years about the Middle East is to stay the hell out of it - just isolate them and allow them to self-destruct.

Trump must reevaluate the situation with Kushner. The man apparently has unlimited authority and no clear portfolio. It's like "You just keep on doing things. I'll tell you when it's wrong". That is untenable.

Agree with you about:

(a) The health bill. The version Ryan concocted would have been a negative.

(b) You were so right about Ivanka & Syria! All in all it might have been a blessing in disguise for Trump, but my instincts would have been to investigate the Syrian attack first. So I agree with your well argued assessment.

(c) Kushner: He still has to prove himself. Trump must have a high regard of him. One of the articles I read explains that Trump is used to running a family business and that his instinct is to consult family members. Even my mom frowns on the Kushner/Ivanka set-up!

I have seen it written more than once that Trump thrives on chaos. Although I sort of doubt whether that can be a sustainable situation, I must confess that it does seem that way from the outside. At the same time he always seems to land on his feet! Another headline comes to mind: Trump wins even when he is losing! He seems to have an eye for the gap, is prepared to reconsider issues (pragmatic is perhaps an apt description). Despite the overarching ideology, within that he listens to people and makes adjustments. Well, perhaps I am just being kind to him.

Edited to add: This report suggests to me collaboration between China and the US on the N Korean issue. China with 150 000 soldiers on the one border and the US with some 29 000 soldiers on the other. The Chinese troop movements occurred arround the time of the Trump/Xi meeting. I have not seen negative reaction from the US about the Chinese movements.

Just to come back briefly to Syria: One should perhaps keep in mind that Trump has declared on more than one occasion his aversion to discussing possible military reaction. Had he done nothing on Syria, in 6 months' time they would have been more than prepared for him while in the meantime flying numerous poison gas sorties. He only had the element of surprise this once and one must assume that the evidence was pretty compelling.